1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following 2.33 to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The court of the first instance on the Plaintiff’s assertion is erroneous for misapprehending the selection of comparative standard lots and the amendment of other factors, and omitting the assessment on the part of bed of the first and second floors in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground buildings.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court that adopted these erroneous appraisal results as evidence should be revoked.

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff’s specific purport of this part of the claim regarding the selection of comparative standard land differs from each other, but the instant land is similar to the surrounding land in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, and thus, I land, other than G land, should be selected as a comparative standard site. However, in the appraisal of land, land should be selected as a comparative standard site with the same or similar land (Article 14(3) of the Rules on Appraisal and Assessment, barring any special circumstance, the specific-purpose area cannot be selected as a comparative standard site with another land.

However, in the case of this case, the land of this case owned by the plaintiff is a detached house located in the house and commercial zone adjacent to the vertical length, while the land of this case is a commercial real estate located in the luminous route shopping zone, and it is rather unfair to select the land of this case as a comparative standard because it is a commercial real estate located in the luminous route shopping zone.

In addition to the above unilateral assertion, the Plaintiff is a specific assertion that it erred in the selection of a comparative standard for the first instance court appraiser.